-
Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation :... Nov 2022While it is well known that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) increase the risk of acute renal failure, the role of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
While it is well known that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) increase the risk of acute renal failure, the role of neprilysin inhibition (NEPi) is unclear and some physicians are reluctant to prescribe sacubitril/valsartan because of safety concerns. This meta-analysis aimed to examine the risk for renal events, progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) or progression to dialysis on combined NEPi and ACEi/ARBs compared with ACEi or ARBs.
METHODS
We performed a systematic meta-analysis including 17 randomized controlled trials (study drug sacubitril/valsartan or omapatrilat), involving a total of 23 569 patients, after searching PubMed, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.org and Embase for eligible studies. From the included trials, all renal endpoints, including long- and short-term outcomes and hyperkalemia, were extracted. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird method. The study was registered at PROSPERO.
RESULTS
Overall, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or omapatrilat showed a slightly lower risk of any renal event [OR 0.82 (0.7-0.97)] compared with treatment with an ACEi or ARB alone. Also, there was a decreased risk of severe acute renal events [OR 0.8 (0.69-0.93)] and a decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate decline [mean difference -0.58 mL/min (-0.83 to -0.33 mL/min)]. There was no difference in chronic renal events [OR 0.92 (0.8-1.05)] or hyperkalemia [OR 1.02 (0.84-1.23)].
CONCLUSION
NEPi + ACEi/ARBs are safe in terms of renal adverse events. Longer trials focusing on CKD are needed to evaluate the effect of NEPi on decreasing progression of CKD.
Topics: Humans; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Neprilysin; Hyperkalemia; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Valsartan; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35022763
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfac001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2014Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely prescribed for primary hypertension (systolic blood... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely prescribed for primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure > 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure > 90 mmHg). However, while ACE inhibitors have been shown to reduce mortality and morbidity in placebo-controlled trials, ARBs have not. Therefore, a comparison of the efficacies of these two drug classes in primary hypertension for preventing total mortality and cardiovascular events is important.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs on total mortality and cardiovascular events, and their rates of withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs), in people with primary hypertension.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the ISI Web of Science up to July 2014. We contacted study authors for missing and unpublished information, and also searched the reference lists of relevant reviews for eligible studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials enrolling people with uncontrolled or controlled primary hypertension with or without other risk factors. Included trials must have compared an ACE inhibitor and an ARB in a head-to-head manner, and lasted for a duration of at least one year. If background blood pressure lowering agents were continued or added during the study, the protocol to do so must have been the same in both study arms.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine studies with 11,007 participants were included. Of the included studies, five reported data on total mortality, three reported data on total cardiovascular events, and four reported data on cardiovascular mortality. No study separately reported cardiovascular morbidity. In contrast, eight studies contributed data on WDAE. Included studies were of good to moderate quality. There was no evidence of a difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.10), total cardiovascular events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19), or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13). Conversely, a high level of evidence indicated a slightly lower incidence of WDAE for ARBs as compared with ACE inhibitors (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.93; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.8%, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 55 over 4.1 years), mainly attributable to a higher incidence of dry cough with ACE inhibitors. The quality of the evidence for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes was limited by possible publication bias, in that several studies were initially eligible for inclusion in this review, but had no extractable data available for the hypertension subgroup. To this end, the evidence for total mortality was judged to be moderate, while the evidence for total cardiovascular events was judged to be low by the GRADE approach.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our analyses found no evidence of a difference in total mortality or cardiovascular outcomes for ARBs as compared with ACE inhibitors, while ARBs caused slightly fewer WDAEs than ACE inhibitors. Although ACE inhibitors have shown efficacy in these outcomes over placebo, our results cannot be used to extrapolate the same conclusion for ARBs directly, which have not been studied in placebo-controlled trials for hypertension. Thus, the substitution of an ARB for an ACE inhibitor, while supported by evidence on grounds of tolerability, must be made in consideration of the weaker evidence for the efficacy of ARBs regarding mortality and morbidity outcomes compared with ACE inhibitors. Additionally, our data mostly derives from participants with existing clinical sequelae of hypertension, and it would be useful to have data from asymptomatic people to increase the generalizability of this review. Unpublished subgroup data of hypertensive participants in existing trials comparing ACE inhibitors and ARBs needs to be made available for this purpose.
Topics: Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Essential Hypertension; Heart Diseases; Humans; Hypertension; Hypotension; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke
PubMed: 25148386
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009096.pub2 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... Aug 2014Avascular necrosis (AVN) is a pathological process associated with many medical conditions, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Whether or not the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Avascular necrosis (AVN) is a pathological process associated with many medical conditions, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Whether or not the use of protease inhibitors (PIs) confers additional risk for AVN to HIV-infected patients is controversial. Previous epidemiological studies showed an increased risk of AVN among PI users, but these studies did not have enough power to achieve statistical significance. A meta-analysis of case-control studies reporting the odds ratios (ORs) of AVN among HIV-infected patients who were exposed to PIs compared with non-exposed patients was conducted. Pooled ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel analysis. Four case-control studies were identified and included for data analysis. The meta-analysis demonstrated an increased odds of AVN in participants exposed to PIs, with an OR of 2.09 (95% CI 1.01-4.31; P=0.05). The statistical heterogeneity of this meta-analysis was determined not to be important, with an I(2) of 0%. The meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant increased odds of AVN among PI-exposed, HIV-infected patients. Physician should be aware of this association as it may help guide potential therapeutic options, particularly for patients with other classic risk factors for AVN.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; HIV Infections; HIV Protease Inhibitors; Humans; Incidence; Osteonecrosis
PubMed: 24726526
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2014.02.011 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Jan 2023About 1.3 million pregnant women lived with HIV and were eligible to receive antiretroviral therapy (ART) worldwide in 2021. The World Health Organization recommends... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Adverse perinatal outcomes associated with prenatal exposure to protease-inhibitor-based versus non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based antiretroviral combinations in pregnant women with HIV infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
About 1.3 million pregnant women lived with HIV and were eligible to receive antiretroviral therapy (ART) worldwide in 2021. The World Health Organization recommends protease inhibitors (PI)-based regimen as second or third-line during pregnancy. With remaining pregnant women exposed to PIs, there is still an interest to assess whether this treatment affects perinatal outcomes. Adverse perinatal outcomes after prenatal exposure to PI-based ART remain conflicting: some studies report an increased risk of preterm birth (PTB) and low-birth-weight (LBW), while others do not find these results. We assessed adverse perinatal outcomes associated with prenatal exposure to PI-based compared with non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase (NNRTI)-based ART.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review searching PubMed, Reprotox, Clinical Trial Registry (clinicaltrials.gov) and abstracts of HIV conferences between 01/01/2002 and 29/10/2021. We used Oxford and Newcastle-Ottawa scales to assess the methodological quality. Studied perinatal outcomes were spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, congenital abnormalities, PTB (< 37 weeks of gestation), very preterm birth (VPTB, < 32 weeks of gestation), LBW (< 2500 grs), very low-birth-weight (VLBW, < 1500 g), small for gestational age (SGA) and very small for gestational age (VSGA). The association between prenatal exposure to PI-based compared to NNRTI-based ART was measured for each adverse perinatal outcome using random-effect meta-analysis to estimate pooled relative risks (RR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Pre-specified analyses were stratified according to country income and study quality assessment, and summarized when homogeneous.
RESULTS
Out of the 49,171 citations identified, our systematic review included 32 published studies, assessing 45,427 pregnant women. There was no significant association between prenatal exposure to PIs compared to NNRTIs for VPTB, LBW, SGA, stillbirth, and congenital abnormalities. However, it was inconclusive for PTB, and PI-based ART is significantly associated with an increased risk of VSGA (sRR 1.41 [1.08-1.84]; I = 0%) compared to NNRTIs.
CONCLUSIONS
We did not report any significant association between prenatal exposure to PIs vs NNRTIs-based regimens for most of the adverse perinatal outcomes, except for VSGA significantly increased (+ 41%). The evaluation of antiretroviral exposure on pregnancy outcomes remains crucial to fully assess the benefice-risk balance, when prescribing ART in women of reproductive potential with HIV.
PROSPERO NUMBER
CRD42022306896.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Anti-Retroviral Agents; HIV Infections; Peptide Hydrolases; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors; Stillbirth; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Abortion, Spontaneous; Congenital Abnormalities; Pregnancy Complications
PubMed: 36717801
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-023-05347-5 -
PloS One 2011As part of the European research consortium IBDase, we addressed the role of proteases and protease inhibitors (P/PIs) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), characterized... (Review)
Review
As part of the European research consortium IBDase, we addressed the role of proteases and protease inhibitors (P/PIs) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), characterized by chronic mucosal inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, which affects 2.2 million people in Europe and 1.4 million people in North America. We systematically reviewed all published genetic studies on populations of European ancestry (67 studies on Crohn's disease [CD] and 37 studies on ulcerative colitis [UC]) to identify critical genomic regions associated with IBD. We developed a computer algorithm to map the 807 P/PI genes with exact genomic locations listed in the MEROPS database of peptidases onto these critical regions and to rank P/PI genes according to the accumulated evidence for their association with CD and UC. 82 P/PI genes (75 coding for proteases and 7 coding for protease inhibitors) were retained for CD based on the accumulated evidence. The cylindromatosis/turban tumor syndrome gene (CYLD) on chromosome 16 ranked highest, followed by acylaminoacyl-peptidase (APEH), dystroglycan (DAG1), macrophage-stimulating protein (MST1) and ubiquitin-specific peptidase 4 (USP4), all located on chromosome 3. For UC, 18 P/PI genes were retained (14 proteases and 4 protease inhibitors), with a considerably lower amount of accumulated evidence. The ranking of P/PI genes as established in this systematic review is currently used to guide validation studies of candidate P/PI genes, and their functional characterization in interdisciplinary mechanistic studies in vitro and in vivo as part of IBDase. The approach used here overcomes some of the problems encountered when subjectively selecting genes for further evaluation and could be applied to any complex disease and gene family.
Topics: Databases, Protein; Deubiquitinating Enzyme CYLD; Dystroglycans; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Genome-Wide Association Study; Hepatocyte Growth Factor; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Peptide Hydrolases; Protease Inhibitors; Proto-Oncogene Proteins; Tumor Suppressor Proteins; Ubiquitin Thiolesterase; Ubiquitin-Specific Proteases
PubMed: 21931648
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024106 -
Scientific Reports May 2021Although a considerable volume of data supporting induction or aggravation of psoriasis because of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor use exists, it remains... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Although a considerable volume of data supporting induction or aggravation of psoriasis because of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor use exists, it remains insufficient for definitive conclusions. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the association between ACE inhibitor use and psoriasis incidence through a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. We searched for qualifying studies across PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the strength of the association between ACE inhibitor use and psoriasis incidence. Eight studies with a total of 54,509 patients with a psoriasis diagnosis were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled OR for psoriasis incidence among ACE inhibitor users was 1.52 (95% CI, 1.16-2.00) compared to that among non-users. From subgroup analysis by continent, the OR for ACE inhibitor users versus non-users was 2.37 (95% CI 1.28-4.37) in Asia. Per the subgroup analysis by climate, the OR for ACE inhibitor users vs non-users in dry climate was 3.45 (95% CI: 2.05-5.79) vs 1.32 (95% CI 1.01-1.73) in temperate climate. Our results reveal a significant association between ACE inhibitor use and psoriasis incidence.
Topics: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Humans; Incidence; Psoriasis
PubMed: 33976340
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-89490-z -
Annals of Internal Medicine May 2024Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins as monotherapy or combination therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2010 through January 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
RCTs lasting at least 52 weeks that included at least 500 adults with T2DM receiving eligible medications and reported any outcomes of interest.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE) were done.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 130 publications from 84 RCTs were identified. CoE was appraised using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria for direct, indirect, and network meta-analysis (NMA); the highest CoE was reported. Compared with usual care, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (high CoE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (moderate to high CoE), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure hospitalizations and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke (high CoE), and SGLT2 inhibitors reduce serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia (high CoE). The threshold for minimally important differences, which was predefined with the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee, was not met for these outcomes. Compared with usual care, insulin, tirzepatide, and DPP4 inhibitors do not reduce all-cause mortality (low to high CoE). Compared with insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (low to moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors and sulfonylurea (SU), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce MACE (moderate to high CoE). Compared with SU and insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce severe hypoglycemia (low to high CoE).
LIMITATIONS
Infrequent direct comparisons between drugs of interest; sparse data for NMA on most outcomes; possible incoherence due to differences in baseline patient characteristics and usual care; insufficient data on predefined subgroups, including demographic subgroups, patients with prior cardiovascular disease, and treatment-naive persons.
CONCLUSION
In adults with T2DM, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists (but not DPP4 inhibitors, insulin, or tirzepatide) reduce all-cause mortality and MACE compared with usual care. SGLT2 inhibitors reduce CKD progression and heart failure hospitalization and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke compared with usual care. Serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia are less frequent with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists than with insulin or SU.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022322129).
Topics: Humans; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Hypoglycemic Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Insulin; Adult; Cardiovascular Diseases; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Hypoglycemia; Drug Therapy, Combination
PubMed: 38639549
DOI: 10.7326/M23-1490 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2011Heart failure occurs in 3% to 4% of adults aged over 65 years, usually as a consequence of coronary artery disease or hypertension, and causes breathlessness, effort... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Heart failure occurs in 3% to 4% of adults aged over 65 years, usually as a consequence of coronary artery disease or hypertension, and causes breathlessness, effort intolerance, fluid retention, and increased mortality. The 5-year mortality in people with systolic heart failure ranges from 25% to 75%, often owing to sudden death following ventricular arrhythmia. Risks of cardiovascular events are increased in people with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) or heart failure.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of multidisciplinary interventions for heart failure? What are the effects of exercise in people with heart failure? What are the effects of drug treatments for heart failure? What are the effects of devices for treatment of heart failure? What are the effects of coronary revascularisation for treatment of heart failure? What are the effects of drug treatments in people at high risk of heart failure? What are the effects of treatments for diastolic heart failure? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 80 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: aldosterone receptor antagonists, amiodarone, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, anticoagulation, antiplatelet agents, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, cardiac resynchronisation therapy, coronary revascularisation, digoxin (in people already receiving diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors), exercise, hydralazine plus isosorbide dinitrate, implantable cardiac defibrillators, multidisciplinary interventions, non-amiodarone antiarrhythmic drugs, and positive inotropes (other than digoxin).
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy; Heart Failure; Humans; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left
PubMed: 21878135
DOI: No ID Found -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Jul 2016Previous studies suggest that nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) cause faster virologic suppression, while ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Nonnucleoside Reverse-transcriptase Inhibitor- vs Ritonavir-boosted Protease Inhibitor-based Regimens for Initial Treatment of HIV Infection: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis of Randomized Trials.
BACKGROUND
Previous studies suggest that nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) cause faster virologic suppression, while ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (PI/r) recover more CD4 cells. However, individual trials have not been powered to compare clinical outcomes.
METHODS
We searched databases to identify randomized trials that compared NNRTI- vs PI/r-based initial therapy. A metaanalysis calculated risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs), as appropriate. Primary outcome was death or progression to AIDS. Secondary outcomes were death, progression to AIDS, and treatment discontinuation. We calculated RR of virologic suppression and MD for an increase in CD4 cells at week 48.
RESULTS
We included 29 trials with 9047 participants. Death or progression to AIDS occurred in 226 participants in the NNRTI arm and in 221 in the PI/r arm (RR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, .87-1.22; 12 trials; n = 3825), death in 205 participants in the NNRTI arm vs 198 in the PI/r arm (1.04; 0.86-1.25; 22 trials; n = 8311), and progression to AIDS in 140 participants in the NNRTI arm vs 144 in the PI/r arm (1.00; 0.80-1.25; 13 trials; n = 4740). Overall treatment discontinuation (1.12; 0.93-1.35; 24 trials; n = 8249) and from toxicity (1.21; 0.87-1.68; 21 trials; n = 6195) were comparable, but discontinuation due to virologic failure was more common with NNRTI (1.58; 0.91-2.74; 17 trials; n = 5371). At week 48, there was no difference between NNRTI and PI/r in virologic suppression (RR, 1.03; 0.98-1.09) or CD4(+) recovery (MD, -4.7 cells; -14.2 to 4.8).
CONCLUSIONS
We found no difference in clinical and viro-immunologic outcomes between NNRTI- and PI/r-based therapy.
Topics: Anti-HIV Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; HIV Infections; HIV Protease Inhibitors; Humans; Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors; Ritonavir
PubMed: 27090986
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciw236 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Feb 2010Heart failure occurs in 3% to 4% of adults aged over 65 years, usually as a consequence of coronary artery disease or hypertension, and causes breathlessness, effort... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Heart failure occurs in 3% to 4% of adults aged over 65 years, usually as a consequence of coronary artery disease or hypertension, and causes breathlessness, effort intolerance, fluid retention, and increased mortality. The 5-year mortality in people with systolic heart failure ranges from 25% to 75%, often owing to sudden death following ventricular arrhythmia. Risks of cardiovascular events are increased in people with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) or heart failure.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of non-drug treatments, and of drug and invasive treatments, for heart failure? What are the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in people at high risk of heart failure? What are the effects of treatments for diastolic heart failure? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 85 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: aldosterone receptor antagonists; amiodarone; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; angiotensin II receptor blockers; anticoagulation; antiplatelet agents; beta-blockers; calcium channel blockers; cardiac resynchronisation therapy; digoxin (in people already receiving diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors); exercise; hydralazine plus isosorbide dinitrate; implantable cardiac defibrillators; multidisciplinary interventions; non-amiodarone antiarrhythmic drugs; and positive inotropes (other than digoxin).
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Heart Failure; Humans; Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left
PubMed: 21718583
DOI: No ID Found